Satish (OBC) vs Union Of India And Others

Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant was a candidate for the post of Junior Engineer in various disciplines for the examination, which commenced in the year 2015.

Paper-I was held on 31.01.2016. The applicant was shown to have obtained high merit position in the marks statement published on 05.05.2016. The applicant participated in Paper-II, which was conducted on 24.07.2016. On 02.01.2017, the respondents published the marks statement of the candidates, in which the candidature of the applicant was shown to have been rejected without assigning any reason. He submitted a representation dated 12.01.2017.

Subsequently, on 25.01.2017, the respondents published a list of rejected candidates, in which the ground for rejection of the candidature of the applicant was assigned as "Subject". Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed this O.A.seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Call for the records of the case.

(b) Quash and set aside the impugned action/order of the respondents rejecting the applicant's candidature reflected in their impugned decision dated 02.01.2017 placed at Annexure A/1 and the reason assigned by way of Annexure A/2 published on 25.1.2017 to the extent they relate to the applicant.

(c) Direct the respondents to restore the candidature of the applicant in the ongoing selection process of Junior Engineers (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Quantity Surveying & Contract) Examination 2015 and further consider the applicant case for appointment as per his merit position in the concerned subject alongwith benefits.

(d) Accord all consequential benefits.

(e) Award costs of the proceedings; and

(f) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."

The applicant has submitted that this Tribunal in OA-263/2017 (Avinash Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. SSC) and in OA-391/2017 (Nitish Kumar Vs. SSC) vide orders dated 21.02.2017 has granted similar relief. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Rohit Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. (CWP No.13720/2012) dated 27.07.2012 wherein the following has been held:-

"It is admitted position on record that while filling in OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheet petitioner had wrongly darkened the roll number although in letters he had rightly filled his roll number. When seen from other angle petitioner has secured 75.25% marks, this shows that the candidate appears to be quite meritorious and, therefore, for such mistake his career should not be jeoparadise. It is stated that main written examination for the post for which the petitioner had applied i.e Sub Inspector in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force is fixed for 29.07.2012, therefore, direction is issued to the respondents to accept the candidature of the petitioner and permit him to participate in the main written examination."

The applicant also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [WP(C) No. 657/2012] dated 02.01.2013 in which the candidature of the applicant had been rejected because he had failed to mention his gender in the OMR sheet. Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to examine the case of the applicant, on merit.

The applicant has also cited the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-2063/2012 (Ravindra Malik Vs. DSSSB) dated 13.02.2013 in which case, the applicant while appearing in Tier-II examination wrote the ticket/seat No. as 2201023 instead of 2109123. Therein also the Instructions provided that candidates not filling the right ticket No. will not be evaluated and will be awarded zero mark. However, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed that respondents consider him on merit.

Citing the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Principal Bench of CAT in the case of Arvind Kumar Kajla Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA-1802/2012) dated 30.10.2013, the applicant submits that therein the applicant had entered his Roll No. correctly at two places but he forgot to code it. For this error the respondents gave him zero mark, disqualifying him. Relief was, however, allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench and respondents were directed to re-evaluate Tier-II of his answer sheet.

Similarly, in another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in the case of Subhanta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan [WP(C) No. 11269/2011) dated 13.05.2014, the applicants had committed a minor mistake relating to darkening the circles pertaining to their date of birth. The respondents were directed to evaluate the OMR sheets of the applicants and consider their cases for appointment.

Lastly, the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar and Anr. [(WP(C) No. 1004/2012) dated 24.02.2012 in which it was held that instructions given to candidates not to sign in block letters in English were merely directory and not mandatory and relief was provided to the respondent.

In the short counter reply filed by the respondents, they have opposed the contentions of the applicant. They state that the applicant appeared in Paper-I of the Junior Engineers (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Quantity Surveying & Contract) Examination, 2015. On the basis of his performance in Paper-I, he was called for Paper-II and appeared for the same. There were mandatory instructions on the answer book for strict compliance by the candidates. However, the applicant in his answer book did not mark the subject. Therefore, his candidature for the post in question was rejected. It is well settled principle of law that once a candidate has participated in any recruitment examination then the terms and conditions/procedure of the examination cannot be questioned. In a similar case, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 24372/2012 vide order dated 28.05.2012 observed that:-

"Sri Brij Kishor Jaiswal, Roll No. 3010032175 has wrongly coded his Test Form No. in Paper-I of Tier-II Examination on his OMR Answer Sheet of the said Examination. Therefore, as per provisions of the Notice of Examination and instructions in the OMR Answer Sheet, he has been awarded Zero marks in Paper-I. In view of the aforesaid instructions there is no fault on the part of the Respondent authorities. The Petitioner himself has wrongly coded his Test Form No. in Paper-I of Tier-II Examination on his OMR Answer Sheet."

Therefore, there is no scope for extending concession or leniency to any candidate who has not abided by the rule position.

3.1 They further aver that the reliance placed by the applicant in Tribunal's judgment dated 21.02.2017 in OA-215/2017 with OA-263/2017 and OA-391/2017 has been assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 4829/2017.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings of the current OA. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.

4.1 During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for the parties tried to hammer home the points already raised in the OA as well as the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents.

4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant, produced copies of orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 4829/2017 (UOI & Ors. Vs. Sumit Kumar) dated 10.08.2017 and in WP(C) No. 6086/2017 (UOI & Anr. Vs. Avinash Chandra Singh and Ors.) dated 29.08.2017 filed by the respondents, both of which were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court.

In our considered view, the judicial pronouncements are overwhelmingly in favour of the applicant. As has been held time and again, the minor lapses or technical omissions committed by the applicant were non-essential and not substantive in nature. Hence, we hold that cancellation of the candidature of the applicant for the alleged lapse is unwarranted. We, therefore, allow the O.A. and quash the impugned orders dated 02.01.2017 and 25.01.2017. We direct the respondents to process the candidature of the applicant in accordance with law provided he is not found ineligible for any other reason. No costs.